PURPOSE: The present study seeks to determine if TLP would prevent HFD-induced NAFLD in vivo and its underlying mechanisms from the perspectives of gut microbiota, metabolites, and hepatic inflammation.
METHODS: TLP was subjected to extraction and chemo-profiling, and in vivo evaluation in HFD-fed rats on hepatic lipid and inflammation, intestinal microbiota, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and permeability, and body weight and fat content profiles.
RESULTS: The TLP was primarily constituted of gallic acid, corilagin and chebulagic acid. Orally administered HFD-fed rats with TLP were characterized by the growth of Ligilactobacillus and Akkermansia, and SCFAs (acetic/propionic/butyric acid) secretion which led to increased claudin-1 and zonula occludens-1 expression that reduced the mucosal permeability to migration of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) into blood and liver. Coupling with hepatic cholesterol and triglyceride lowering actions, the TLP mitigated both inflammatory (ALT, AST, IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α) and pro-inflammatory (TLR4, MYD88 and NF-κB P65) activities of liver, and sequel to histopathological development of NAFLD in a dose-dependent fashion.
CONCLUSION: TLP is promisingly an effective therapy to prevent NAFLD through modulating gut microbiota, mucosal permeability and SCFAs secretion with liver fat and inflammatory responses.
METHODS: This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL+, Econlit, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from inception to 31 December, 2022, for relevant economic evaluations, which were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) criteria. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness thresholds were qualitatively analysed. Net monetary benefits at different decision thresholds were also computed. Subgroup analyses addressing the heterogeneity of economic outcomes were conducted. All costs were adjusted to 2023 international dollar (US$) values using the CCEMG-EPPI-Centre cost converter.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine economic evaluations that evaluated dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with heart failure were found: 32 for the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and seven for LVEF > 40%. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were cost-effective in all but two economic evaluations for LVEF > 40%. Economic outcomes varied widely, but favoured SGLT2i use in LVEF ≤ 40% over LVEF > 40% and upper-middle income over high-income countries. At a threshold of US$30,000/quality-adjusted life-year, ~ 90% of high to upper-middle income countries would consider SGLT2i cost-effective for heart failure treatment. The generalisability of study findings to low- and low-middle income countries is limited because of insufficient evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Using SGLT2i to treat heart failure is cost-effective, with more certainty in LVEF ≤ 40% compared to LVEF > 40%. Policymakers in jurisdictions where economic evaluations are not available could potentially use this study's findings to make informed decisions about treatment adoption.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023388701).